by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
Washington : The US Congress has approved a stopgap budget that averts, for now, a partial government shutdown, which had been a strong possibility due to the failure of Republican and Democratic lawmakers to agree on a more comprehensive bill.
The approval came after President Donald Trump met Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on Thursday to negotiate an agreement that would allow federal agencies to continue receiving funding before their allocated budget money ran out on Friday, reports Efe news.
The Senate approved the deal in an 81-14 vote, allowing the government to be financed through December 22, and the House had earlier given its support to the measure in a 235-193 vote, with all the “yes” votes being cast by Republicans and all the no votes by Democrats.
The budget bill is a temporary solution that will now be sent to the White House, where Trump is expected to sign it.
Congress, which had until Friday to approve the law, now has two weeks to work out a budget bill for the next fiscal year.
Senate Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the temporary measure gives lawmakers “the time we need” to finalize discussions on a long-term budget solution.
After Democratic congressional leaders Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi cancelled a meeting with the president several days ago, they agreed to meet with him in the Oval office on Thursday to narrow their differences.
“We hope we can come to an agreement,” said Schumer.
“Funding the government is extremely important. Helping our soldiers is very important and helping average citizens is very important. So we’re here in the spirit of ‘Let’s get it done.'”
Also on hand for the meeting with the president were the two top Republicans in Congress: House Speaker Paul Ryan and McConnell.
However, after the meeting, Schumer and Pelosi said in a joint statement that, despite having a “productive conversation… Nothing specific” was agreed to by the participants.
The main stumbling block is the Democratic demand that they will only agree to approve a budget bill if a law is enacted safeguarding so-called Dreamers, young undocumented foreigners brought to this country as children and protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme, which was cancelled by Trump.
In September, the President cancelled DACA, which was implemented by his predecessor, Barack Obama, but he gave Congress six months to provide a legislative solution to the Dreamers’ situation.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Muslim World
Washington : US President Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital triggered global flak, including from some of America’s closest allies, amid fears it could strengthen extremists and destroy the region’s faltering peace process.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Trump’s decision on Wednesday had made for a “historic day” and was “an important step towards peace”. But furious Palestinians condemned it and warned that had diminished Washington’s role as a peace mediator.
Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas called the decision “deplorable” and said it will not change Jerusalem’s status as the “eternal capital of the State of Palestine”.
Palestinians took to the streets in Gaza and the West Bank.
The hardline Hamas called for a “day of rage” on Friday and said the decision would “open the doors of hell” on US interests in the region.
In a landmark speech in Washington, Trump reversed decades of US policy in defiance of warnings that recognizing Jerusalem as the capital will derail the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and create further unrest in the Middle East.
Trump, fulfilling his campaign promise, said he had “judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the US and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians”.
He said he would tell the State Department to begin preparations to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump said the US still supported a two-state solution to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, if approved by both sides.
Several past US Presidents insisted that the status of Jerusalem — home to sites holy to the Jewish, Muslim and Christian religions — must be decided in negotiations between the two sides.
The UN Security Council will discuss the issue on Friday after eight of the 15 nations called for an emergency session. The Arab League will meet on Saturday.
The Arab and the wider Muslim world, including a number of US allies, condemned Trump’s announcement.
The Saudi Royal Court warned of serious consequences of such an “irresponsible and unwarranted step”. The United Arab Emirates expressed “deep concern” about the repercussions of the decision, WAM news agency reported.
Lebanon’s pro-Hezbollah al-Akhbar newspaper declared “Death to America” on its front page on Thursday.
President Hassan Rouhani said Iran “will not tolerate a violation of Islamic sanctities. Muslims must stand united against this major plot”.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the US decision was not only a violation of international law but also a severe blow to the conscience of humanity. Demonstrations erupted outside the US consulate in Istanbul.
Kuwait and Qatar, besides China and Pakistan, also came out against the US move.
India declined to comment, saying its position on Palestine “is independent and consistent”.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said it was “a moment of great anxiety”. He said “there is no alternative to the two-state solution”.
Pope Francis called for the city’s “status quo” to be respected, saying new tensions in the Middle East would further inflame world conflicts.
British leader Theresa May disagreed with the US decision, which was “unhelpful in terms of prospects for peace in the region”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron both said their countries did not support the move. Canada said its embassy won’t move to Jerusalem.
EU chief diplomat Federica Mogherini voiced “serious concern”.
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak called on Muslims worldwide to “make it clear that we strongly oppose” the US move. Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo too slammed the US decision.
The Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state, and according to the 1993 Israel-Palestinian peace accords, its final status is meant to be discussed in the latter stages of peace talks.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
Washington : The Supreme Court has allowed the third version of President Donald Trumps executive order to ban residents of eight countries including six Muslim-majority nations, from travelling to the US while legal challenges against it continue, media reports said.
Issued in September, the third edition of the travel ban placed varying levels of restrictions on foreign nationals from the eight countries: Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen, reports CNN.
This is the first time justices have allowed any edition of the ban to go forward in its entirety.
In unsigned orderd on Monday that did not disclose the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the justices lifted the injunctions, which had been issued by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland.
The court’s orders mean that the administration can fully enforce its new restrictions on travel from the eight nations, reports The New York Times.
The restrictions vary in their details, but in most cases, citizens of the countries will be unable to emigrate to the US permanently and many will be barred from working, studying or vacationing here.
Iran, for example, will still be able to send its citizens on student exchanges, though such visitors will be subject to enhanced screening.
Somalis will no longer be allowed to emigrate to the US, but may visit with extra screening.
The Supreme Court’s orders effectively overturned a compromise in place since June, when it said that travellers with connections to the US could continue to travel here notwithstanding restrictions in an earlier version of the ban.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the order “a substantial victory for the safety and security of the American people”.
A spokesman for the White House, Hogan Gidley, said: “We are not surprised by today’s Supreme Court decision,” calling it “lawful and essential to protecting our homeland”.
Meanwhile, challenges against the travel ban will continue this week on both coasts, reports CNN.
In the Hawaii case, a district court judge blocked the ban from going into effect except as it pertains to Venezuela and North Korea.
But a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals partially lifted that order.
The appeals court allowed the ban to go into effect except for foreign nationals who have “bona fide” relationships with people or entities in the US. The language of the order was adopted from a Supreme Court order pertaining to an earlier version of the ban.
Neal Katyal, representing Hawaii, had urged the justices to leave the lower court’s ruling — that echoed the justices’ own words from the previous case — intact.
In a separate challenge out of Maryland brought by, among others, the International Refugee Assistance Project, US District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang issued a similar order also partially enjoining the ban in a case that is now pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both cases are scheduled to be heard before the appeals courts on Wednesday and Friday.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
By Rajendra Shende,
George Bernard Shaw once said that “England and America are two countries separated by the same language”. When the UN conference on the Montreal Protocol on the substances that deplete the ozone layer ended in Montreal on November 24, albeit in the wee hours of November 25, I thought this could also be said for Paris and Montreal, not only because of the French language but also the agreements signed there on global action on the climate.
The UN meeting in Montreal celebrated the 30th Anniversary of the success of the phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). The meeting in Bonn a week before, after its 25 years of global efforts, was still wondering how to even finalise the rulebook to stabilise the climate and keep the temperature rise to not more than to 2 degrees Celsius before 2100, while making efforts to limit that rise to 1.5 degrees — the objective of the Paris Climate Agreement.
While US President Donald Trump is walking out of the keenly-negotiated Paris pact, he has surprisingly decided to support the Montreal Protocol, including its 2.0 version that now includes full-blast action against climate change. He has even agreed to take a nearly 25 per cent share of funding of over $500 million pledged by the developed countries to provide to the developing countries. The deal to provide $500 million over the next three years for the purpose was sealed in Montreal last week.
It was warm news in the freezing temperatures at Montreal in contrast to the cold winds blowing from the Bonn climate conference.
The extraordinary success story of the Montreal Protocol never seems to have a full stop. Though Trump never tweeted about it, this multilateral environmental accord, brokered by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1987, was signed by the Republican President Ronald Reagan and fully supported by the Democrats.
Under the treaty, developed countries pledged all the incremental financial support to the developing countries during their transition away from ODS. More importantly, that pledge was honoured year after year without interruption, even during the global financial crisis. It has now reached a cumulative amount of $3.5 billion.
Developing countries responded by implementing the transition to ozone-friendly technologies. The protocol has already achieved its goal of phasing out nearly 100 percent of millions of tonnes of more than 90 man-made ODSs like Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), used mainly in refrigeration, air conditioning, foams and solvents. The factories producing these chemicals have literally shut down.
If the slogan “Yes We Can” has a real-life example, it is this one. In one single generation, these ozone depleting chemicals were invented, their catastrophic impact on the stratospheric ozone layer that shields life on the Earth was scientifically identified, global action to phase them out was agreed through an international agreement, developing countries were provided by the developed countries all the incremental costs and technologies — and the phase-out of these chemicals was achieved exactly on the targeted year and day.
Never before has such an astonishing chain of actions been triggered and taken to its completion.
Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called it “…the single-most successful international environmental agreement to date”. Erik Solheim, Executive Director, UN Environment, during the opening ceremony on November 24, called the Montreal Protocol “a testimony of the spirit of togetherness of nations and humans”.
That “togetherness” has carried the Montreal Protocol’s success beyond the phase-out of ODS. Major ODS like CFCs are also Green House Gases (GHGs). Thus, their phase-out under the Protocol has, as a side benefit, also resulted in the permanent cumulative emission reduction of GHGs to the extent of 130 giga tonnes equivalent of carbon dioxide by 2010, compared to just about one giga tonne of GHGs reduction aimed by 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol. In reality, GHGs increased during this period.
While the Montreal Protocol did successful market transformation to an ozone-friendly world, the Kyoto Protocol remained fatally flawed. The 2015 Paris pact, a follow-up to the unfinished Kyoto Protocol, is still faltering and fudgy.
The “togetherness” highlighted by Solheim is conspicuous by its absence from climate agreements. However, it was ever evident under the Montreal Protocol. The latest achievement came when, in 2016, all 197 countries agreed to deploy the institutions nurtured under the Montreal Protocol for the last 30 years to now phase-down the deadly GHG — hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) — some of which are more than 10,000 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. The developed countries, led by the US, pledged financial and technology support.
That was an unprecedented decision, because the seminal objective of the Montreal Protocol was to get rid of ODS and not GHGs. “It was like using Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons to control the trade in drugs and crime,” said an African environmental law expert, commenting on the decision in Kigali. The Montreal Protocol, in other words, was used as a “surrogate mother” to carry the seeds of the Paris pact to deliver a climate-friendly baby.
There are two-fold reasons for that unusual action: First, HFCs were introduced as substitute for CFCs and other ODS due to their zero-ozone depleting potential. The countries therefore considered that getting away from HFCs would correct their unintended error and contribute to mitigation of climate change. Second, the developed countries agreed to the incremental funding for the developing countries for their — yet another — transformation from HFCs to non-HFCs.
Thus, the Montreal Protocol has now entered its version 2.0 and became the treaty to reduce the emissions of the most potent global warming gas — HFC — which, incidentally, is also one of the six groups of the GHGs under the Paris pact.
Developed countries will start reducing HFCs as early as 2019, while developing countries will start later. Phasing down HFCs under the Protocol is expected to avoid up to 0.5 degrees of global warming by the end of the century, while continuing to protect the ozone layer. If the energy efficiency improvements due to use of non-HFCs in refrigeration and air conditioning appliances are taken into account, then the avoided warming would be even more. That will be equivalent of achieving at least 25 per cent of the objective of the Paris pact.
The world should now concede some cool points to President Trump and his administration amidst the warming and hot chaos.
(Rajendra Shende is Chairman, TERRE Policy Centre, a former UNEP Director and an IIT Alumnus. The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at shende.rajendra@gmail.com)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Markets, Social Media, World
San Francisco : Taking US President Donald Trump’s side once again, Twitter has retracted its previous explanation for why it did not remove Trump’s tweets that included graphic anti-Muslim videos.
Trump this week retweeted videos by far-right British politician Jayda Fraser that purported to show Muslims performing violent acts.
Reacting to this, British Prime Minister Theresa May called Trump “wrong” for promoting such “hateful narratives”.
Trump replied back, telling May that she should instead turn her attention to terrorism and that “we are doing just fine”.
Later, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted: “We mistakenly pointed to the wrong reason (why) we didn’t take action on the videos from earlier this week. We’re still looking critically at all of our current policies, and appreciate all the feedback.”
Now, a two-part tweet from the trust and safety team at the micro-blogging platform has said that the videos “are permitted on Twitter based on our current media policy”.
“Earlier this week Tweets were sent that contained graphic and violent videos. We pointed people to our Help Centre to explain why they remained up, and this caused some confusion,” @TwitterSafety tweeted late on Friday.
“To clarify: these videos are not being kept up because they are newsworthy or for public interest. Rather, these videos are permitted on Twitter based on our current media policy,” it added.
In September, the micro-blogging platform did not remove Trump’s controversial tweet on North Korea that clearly violated its guidelines.
Trump tweeted: “Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at UN. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won’t be around much longer!”
People wondered why Twitter did not remove the tweet that violated the company’s rules.
Reacting to this, Biz Stone, Co-founder of Twitter, posted: “Some of you have been asking why we haven’t taken down the Tweet mentioned here. Among the considerations is its ‘newsworthiness’ and whether a Tweet is of public interest.”
Twitter has never acknowledged publicly that Trump has violated any of its guidelines.
Dorsey has also defended Trump’s tweets.
Earlier this month, a Twitter employee brought down Trump’s Twitter account for 11 minutes on his last day in office.
Twitterati praised the Twitter employee who deactivated Trump’s account.
There have been ongoing calls for Twitter to ban Trump over tweets that critics said could be interpreted as “calls to violence”.
—IANS
